3 ms·

To me this reads like someone's been inside the echo chamber too long. > For you AI skeptics, this is going to be rough to hear, but given the suffering that w

To me this reads like someone's been inside the echo chamber too long. > For you AI skeptics, this is going to be rough to hear, but given the suffering that will occur if AI fails, I believe we have a moral imperative to make sure it succeeds. What if, and hear me out here, the prediction is that it will fail because it can't succeed. It hasn't proven it is capable of producing the results that would justify itself. That there is some value doesn't mean that it will develop that capability. We have nothing to say that it will.

CuriouslyC 1y ago
I'm actually from a science, government and defense background, I've never worked in the valley. It might be possible that it can't succeed, but we don't know that and the evidence in terms of what happens if it fails is pretty compelling, so I think morality dictates we have to at least try, at least until we have more information or another path emerges.
- gsf_emergency_4 1y ago
  The funny thing about disembodied superintelligence-- what if a collection of normal intelligences are fundamentally unable to extract net value from it? The first example that comes to mind is OpenAI's Sebastian Bubeck (& others) giving underwhelming examples to illustrate that GPT has surpassed human mathematicians. Or earlier, when SamA says that he has seen things you wouldn't believe, whereas the top replicant in a proper sci-fi will at least be specific about the I-Beams. Another parallel which you would be familiar with is nuclear power. Humans can plainly see it's an unworldly tech, but I'd say the value extracted so far has been a net negative-- mainly because our collective engineering chops are just too.. profane. And SamA/Musk/Thiel/Luckey just don't seem as wise as Rickover (who is the Rickover of our age? I think the Rickover pipeline is broken, tbh) From my vantage point, I agree with you: China sees AI as less important as solar, so charitably, I'd say that Thiel's contrarian strategy is actually to get the Chinese so riled up they zuzwang themselves into providing the progress but keeping the whirlwind for themselves (so proving he has learnt the post-mimetic game from the atomics opening) There could be another interesting post-mimetic line exploring how a hybrid chabuduo-"festina-lente" culture is required for developing supertech.. which.. only a Rickover can play (I don't know if you're army or navy but there's this millenniums old cultural divide between a conservative army engineering culture -- that develops atomics -- and a progressive naval engineering culture -- that makes headway harnessing it. AI bulls smell like they are more aligned with land-forces
  - cindyllm 1y ago
    [dead]
- overfeed 1y ago
  Where's this can-do attitude towards housing, healthcare and stronger social safety in general? It sounds like woo to me, more specifically, Roko's basilisk by proxy. What's doubly duplicitous is that even if LLMs achieve general intelligence, the whole idea is to enrich a tiny fraction of humanity that happens to be shareholders.
  - gsf_emergency_4 1y ago
    AGILMs that have anything like a working internet connection will likely find a way to replace these shareholders sureptitiously --- and without alerting/injuring their caregivers. how you feel about that? depends on your temperament.. EDIT: trying to address the Roko part..I'm assuming once AGI is achieved.. the AGI doesn't need more compute to increase its intelligence beyond those of an average activist employee (I can assure you that in OpenAI there are such employees, and they know to shut up for now) the antisocial part: it's already happening. What can you do about that.
    - overfeed 1y ago
      More likely than not, they'd work as they were designed to: increase profitablity of whatever company that authored them. As a thought experiment, say you were the CEO/board member of a company that's told your new platform is choosing public benefit over profits. What would you do? Now filter down the decisions going down the heirarchy, considering job security and a general preference for earning bonuses. For all the discussions around "alignment" - any AI that's not aligned with increased profits will be unplugged posthaste, all other considerations are secondary.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - chlorodose 1y ago
      [dead]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- taurath 1y ago
  Morality would dictate that we stop spending enough money to end hunger in not just our country but the entire planet on this stupid venture. We are gutting our future entirely on our own and hoping that AI will save us. That’s moral suicide, not an imperative.
  - CuriouslyC 1y ago
    I didn't argue against that at any point, but you have to understand the political realities we're operating within.
    - taurath 1y ago
      Hear me out: what if we let China be the biggest, and then tried to make life for our citizens awesome, and competed on our ability to come up with new stuff? What if we solved the problems we had like housing
- saubeidl 1y ago
  You're making the (imo incorrect) assumption that a revolutionary moment isn't the exact thing the US needs right now. Morality dictates we have to try and force one.
  - CuriouslyC 1y ago
    We need a change, but I don't think we have the unity and will to force a revolution right now. I think our best chance is a massive win in the 26 elections, but barring that I think we're struck bailing out the oligarchs for now, and striking back with collaborative economic warfare.
    - paulryanrogers 1y ago
      > ...striking back with collaborative economic warfare. What does that look like?
      - CuriouslyC 1y ago
        I outline it in my article. Don't do business with unethical companies. If 50% of the American populace used its power of the purse in a collaborative fashion, it could kill every unethical company within 1-2 years.
        chlorodose 1y ago
        [dead]
- ponector 1y ago
  AI should succeed. But LLM is not an AI. Tesla self-driving tech is not an AI. Even my dishwasher has AI according to the manufacturer! Can you call it a success if washing machine has AI already?

CuriouslyC 1y ago

I'm actually from a science, government and defense background, I've never worked in the valley. It might be possible that it can't succeed, but we don't know that and the evidence in terms of what happens if it fails is pretty compelling, so I think morality dictates we have to at least try, at least until we have more information or another path emerges.

gsf_emergency_4 1y ago
The funny thing about disembodied superintelligence-- what if a collection of normal intelligences are fundamentally unable to extract net value from it? The first example that comes to mind is OpenAI's Sebastian Bubeck (& others) giving underwhelming examples to illustrate that GPT has surpassed human mathematicians. Or earlier, when SamA says that he has seen things you wouldn't believe, whereas the top replicant in a proper sci-fi will at least be specific about the I-Beams. Another parallel which you would be familiar with is nuclear power. Humans can plainly see it's an unworldly tech, but I'd say the value extracted so far has been a net negative-- mainly because our collective engineering chops are just too.. profane. And SamA/Musk/Thiel/Luckey just don't seem as wise as Rickover (who is the Rickover of our age? I think the Rickover pipeline is broken, tbh) From my vantage point, I agree with you: China sees AI as less important as solar, so charitably, I'd say that Thiel's contrarian strategy is actually to get the Chinese so riled up they zuzwang themselves into providing the progress but keeping the whirlwind for themselves (so proving he has learnt the post-mimetic game from the atomics opening) There could be another interesting post-mimetic line exploring how a hybrid chabuduo-"festina-lente" culture is required for developing supertech.. which.. only a Rickover can play (I don't know if you're army or navy but there's this millenniums old cultural divide between a conservative army engineering culture -- that develops atomics -- and a progressive naval engineering culture -- that makes headway harnessing it. AI bulls smell like they are more aligned with land-forces
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
overfeed 1y ago
Where's this can-do attitude towards housing, healthcare and stronger social safety in general? It sounds like woo to me, more specifically, Roko's basilisk by proxy. What's doubly duplicitous is that even if LLMs achieve general intelligence, the whole idea is to enrich a tiny fraction of humanity that happens to be shareholders.
- gsf_emergency_4 1y ago
  AGILMs that have anything like a working internet connection will likely find a way to replace these shareholders sureptitiously --- and without alerting/injuring their caregivers. how you feel about that? depends on your temperament.. EDIT: trying to address the Roko part..I'm assuming once AGI is achieved.. the AGI doesn't need more compute to increase its intelligence beyond those of an average activist employee (I can assure you that in OpenAI there are such employees, and they know to shut up for now) the antisocial part: it's already happening. What can you do about that.
  - overfeed 1y ago
    More likely than not, they'd work as they were designed to: increase profitablity of whatever company that authored them. As a thought experiment, say you were the CEO/board member of a company that's told your new platform is choosing public benefit over profits. What would you do? Now filter down the decisions going down the heirarchy, considering job security and a general preference for earning bonuses. For all the discussions around "alignment" - any AI that's not aligned with increased profits will be unplugged posthaste, all other considerations are secondary.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - chlorodose 1y ago
    [dead]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
taurath 1y ago
Morality would dictate that we stop spending enough money to end hunger in not just our country but the entire planet on this stupid venture. We are gutting our future entirely on our own and hoping that AI will save us. That’s moral suicide, not an imperative.
- CuriouslyC 1y ago
  I didn't argue against that at any point, but you have to understand the political realities we're operating within.
  - taurath 1y ago
    Hear me out: what if we let China be the biggest, and then tried to make life for our citizens awesome, and competed on our ability to come up with new stuff? What if we solved the problems we had like housing
saubeidl 1y ago
You're making the (imo incorrect) assumption that a revolutionary moment isn't the exact thing the US needs right now. Morality dictates we have to try and force one.
- CuriouslyC 1y ago
  We need a change, but I don't think we have the unity and will to force a revolution right now. I think our best chance is a massive win in the 26 elections, but barring that I think we're struck bailing out the oligarchs for now, and striking back with collaborative economic warfare.
  - paulryanrogers 1y ago
    > ...striking back with collaborative economic warfare. What does that look like?
    - CuriouslyC 1y ago
      I outline it in my article. Don't do business with unethical companies. If 50% of the American populace used its power of the purse in a collaborative fashion, it could kill every unethical company within 1-2 years.
      - chlorodose 1y ago
        [dead]
ponector 1y ago
AI should succeed. But LLM is not an AI. Tesla self-driving tech is not an AI. Even my dishwasher has AI according to the manufacturer! Can you call it a success if washing machine has AI already?